Having just read the "Jobs for All [...]" piece, I realize that it doesmake sense in a way. I believe, though, that there are issues which arenot entirely addressed. In scaling back military endeavors such asperpetual armament and rearmament, would we not have a larger sector ofpeople without work? I am not pro-war, but defense is a necessity; and,moves have been made for some time now to make private contractors like theformerly titled Blackwater and others to replace our direct government-runmilitary. Blackwater is attractive to soldiers in many cases, because itpays better and provides better benefits. I guess what I'm saying is:we've got private, standing militaries on our soil who would benefit from areallocation of resources and manpower from the government-run military.These private armies would also be in a strong position both in theirreligious zealotry and their ability to take what they want, having thefirepower to do so. And, myself being in Texas and never 30 minutes awayfrom a gun show, there already exists a degree of armed fanaticism that isproven to be easily swayed by propaganda, with underlying racist,anti-immigrant and anti-Socialist (you must remember that the terms,Socialist/Socialism/socialized, still cannot be used due to our ingrainedfears of Stalinism, Maoism, and ideas of totalitarianism which have beentaught to us as being synonymous to them) sentiment. These individuals andsmall groups still believe themselves to be empowered through firearms,whether against the 'corrupt government' or even 'illegal aliens' andterrorists. They would not listen to reason and would rise up against themeasures outlined in your piece.Also, this does not take into account the role of religion in thiscountry. We are an overwhelmingly religious country, and with religioncomes the willingness of masses to be governed into frenzy andsubservience, and the conflicting beliefs that the wealthy got to theirpositions through hard-work/self-sacrifice and that the poor needn't worryas their reward is in 'heaven'. This fits nicely within the Capitalistmotivation and has done for a very long time. It is often the approach toapply to reason in matters of economy and solutions to the inherent andblatant faults of Capitalism, but emotion is the true driving force in thiscountry.How does an alternative to Capitalism come to the table, into the light,when we have become a fear-controlled and anti-Socialist people?I think within our system--and I am very interested in environmentalissues--that we could raise the standards of pollution control, and bothlower the taxes on medium to large industrial bodies who make tangibleefforts toward green operations and raise the taxes on those who do not.There would be much gained in subsidizing the ridiculous amount of cornfarmers, for instance, to reallocate their farmland into green energysites, which in addition to permanent employment would increase contractconstruction work. Military R&D resources (engineering, laborers, money,facilities...) could be reallocated to new energy research. Health care isan issue. The main problem is that it should not be, in itself, anindustry. We should not need insurance, nor should the government requirethat we need insurance to receive health care, because health insurancecompanies really should not exist. But, like the banks, they are massive.And, as evidenced during the bank bailouts, even when financially strapped,those at the top got their bonuses while departments were cut far below.What do we do with the health insurance industry? It employs so manypeople (my father included). Could our government absorb the majority ofthese companies? We would also need to absorb the private hospitals aswell if we did that. I've lived in England, and I see the positives andnegatives to private and social healthcare each. The medicine that cost me$400 here (equal to my rent at the time), was $12 there ($2 to a Pound in2008), along with every other prescription.I'm rambling. I suppose my question is: how do we move forward withsocial goals without saying Socialism, without being shot at, and withoutshooting, and how would we compensate for industries made redundant undersocialized structures? How do we appeal to hearts and minds at once? Howcan we touch upon so many industries which are built around the Capitalistmodel, without eliminating jobs? How do we get people to stop blamingpoliticians or the government (in an abstract sense) or 'the man', andconsider new structures and economic models outside of unbridledfree-market Capitalism? And how does the message under our strict,capital-driven media get to people in an effective way (i.e. if I didn'tknow the term "Luxemburgism," I would not have found this site)?Sorry about the length of this, but I really want this to work somehow.Very Best,Adam Fine

You raise a lot of points, but I think the two main ones can be summed up as: First, What happens to the industries and activities that we are demanding to be defunded and second, how do we avoid a violent reaction from the right?

In some cases, such as the aerospace-defense industry, nothing at all will happen to the workers—what will change is what they are producing. There have been many academic studies of how the defense industry could be converted to peaceful production. This industry has the most technologically advanced equipment and the best trained workforce. What they are producing are machines—that’s what bombers and tanks and ships are. They can equally well produce machine tools, factory equipment, construction equipment, everything needed to expand other industries and produce millions of new manufacturing and construction jobs, both here and abroad.In other cases—the soldiers of our bloated military, workers in the insurance industry, most of the financial sector generally—employment will indeed be drastically cut. But first, these changes won’t happen overnight—they will come out a of a prolonged struggle. In our public works program in the US, we have specifically demanded ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxing the rich and the corporations, which will still leave a lot of people working in the military, insurance and finance. So other changes would come through, for example, nationlzaitng the finance sector, further cuts in the military budget, etc. Second, as part of a public works program, we will fight for extensive re-training programs and generous unemployment compensation for those in transition or in training. While jobs in some industries are contracting, over-all jobs will be growing, in areas like education, high-tech industry, etc. The fact is very few people who work in these socially unnecessary industries are happy with what they do and if opportunity and training were available, they’d prefer doing something useful. The private military organizations the US now has are not privately-funded. They are funded by the Department of Defense. If their pay is cut off, these guys will go home and find other work.As to the danger of the gun-toting right-wingers—the left in the US consistently overestimates this threat. Yes, it ‘s true that maybe one-third of the US population thinks the sun goes around the earth, and that Obama is a socialist and grumble that they should take their hunting guns and descend on DC. And if there were a real socialist government in the US, no doubt they would still be grumbling that the government was Socialist and that they should take their hunting guns and…But there is a big different between talk and action or even organization. Only a tiny fraction of this big group is willing to kill for their ideas and the number willing to die for these ideas is basically zero. Just to give an example from another time—in the 1960’s the majority of European-Americans in the south were racists, but the KKK was still a small minority. And whenever the Klan faced anyone who might just possibly be armed and fight back, they disappeared. Sure militant right-wing groups will be problem to be dealt with by a real socialist moment in the US, but they are not by any means the main problem now.The problem in the US is not the one third who we will never convince. It is the one third that basically agrees with lot of what we say, but are totally unorganized. If we can organize that one third, and they go into action and win some victories, they will mobilize the one-third that currently is just confused. And in that case, the remaining one third will go back to grumbling. As to the word ”socialism”, it does not have such negative connotations to everyone, as shown in the polls like this one: http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx and the young are more positive than the old. http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/capitalism-versus-socialism-poll-confirms-massive-anti-capitalist-shift-in-us-public-opinion-by-eric-sommer/So the first step is getting that one-third to agree on what needs to be done.